It has always been debatable if
some actions such as lying for some advantages are moral. With different
criteria and notions, how to judge what is moral, what is genuinely moral and
what is not are not so clear. Moreover, the reason or benefit why we should be
moral at all can sometimes be obscure. This essay will discuss on each theory
of ethics proposed by various philosophers from past to present and how they
may help us reach an answer to why we should be moral.

Immanuel Kant’s
idea on ethics may give an answer to the question we are interested in.
However, before the answer can be derived, some of his basic ideas have to be
considered. Kant worked on his theory of ethics by first distinguishing things
that are good as merely a means and things that are intrinsically good or good
in itself. He conceived a good will as the only thing that is good in itself
since its value is unconditional and does not depend on what results it will
give. Other good deeds such as courage, intelligence or judgement on the other
hand are desirable in many respects but they can be extremely bad when used by
the will that is not good.

Reason
is viewed by Kant to have a true function of producing a will which is good,
not as a means to some further end, but in itself. The capability of reasoning
of human is not for making him happy because any other instincts would have
served that end more effectively but is intended for the supreme condition
which Kant calls duty. As human beings are rational, they are therefore capable
of true freedom. When human freely acts in accordance to the law of reason, he
is performing his duty.

An
action which is done out of natural inclination, for example because of desire
or affection is not morally praiseworthy according to Kant. Only if someone
acts without any inclination but out of duty alone, does his action have
genuine moral worth. For example, if a grocer did not overcharge inexperienced
customers because it would be bad for his business then he is acting out of his
own interest and does not worth a moral praise. Only if he did it because it
was a duty then he became morally praiseworthy. Kant tells us that preserving
one’s life is a duty. If a wretched man being hopeless and wanting to die still
preserves his life without loving it, not because of inclination or fear, then
his act has a moral content.

Similarly,
helping others is only genuinely moral when the person who acts is not moved by
any inclination, for example when his own mind is already full of sorrow. To
assure one’s own happiness is also a duty according to Kant, not because we
want to be happy but because it is necessary for us to do other duties. Almost
always, all men have already the strong inclination towards happiness. It then
only has moral worth if one only has a will for good health as a duty, as a law
of furthering his happiness in order to do other duties and not from other
inclinations.

However,
the question what determines what is duty arises. Kant gave an answer to this
question by asserting that “Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for
the law”. Even though reverence is a feeling, he said that it is the
self-produced one and hence it is different from feelings received from outside
which can always be reduced to inclinations and fear, hence the statement is
still valid without any inclination involves. This law must be absolutely good,
regardless of what is expected from it. Kant then asserted what is known as
Kant’s Categorial Imperative: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I
can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”. It refers to a
demand which is not conditioned as opposed to Hypothetical Imperative which is
a conditioned demand e.g. study law (if you want to be a lawyer). This suggests
that breaking promises for some personal advantages are forbidden since
although one may wish to break the promise but one cannot rationally wish that
such action should become a universal law otherwise the whole institutions of
promising will collapse. This should give one of the answers why we should be
moral. If we were not moral in the sense that Kant suggested, the civilisation
and societies might not have been able to form and human might have better
lived individually with only egoistic view which tells us to act out of our own
interest to ensure survival.

We
might as well say that the universal laws in Kant’s notion is an a priori
principle which can be known before or independently of experience. The problem
then might be how to know what action conforms to this universal law since
Kant’s Categorial is too general to help us decide what to do in a particular
circumstance and practically, at the end of the day, experience and convention
are needed to judge the morality of a particular action so Kant’s idea is one
of an absolutist that a standard or absolute knowledge, in this case, the so
called universal law, exists.

For
the question of whether to lie and hurt nobody’s feeling or not to lie
according to Kant’s Categorial Imperative, Kantian answer is not to lie but one
does not necessarily have to say the truth but can avoid by saying “no
comment”, for example.Also if one
steals from the rich and gives to the poor, Kant will say that his acts is
still wrong but he does not deserve to be punished.

Kant
also gave us an alternative version of Categorial Imperative: “Act in such a
way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of
any other, not only as a means but at the same time as an end in itself”. This
is derived from the idea that “persons” are not only valuable but are the
source of value. Their values are unconditioned whereas objects of inclination
which we call “things” only have conditioned values. Without inclinations, they
have no value. Therefore human, or in general a rational being, exists as an
end in himself, not merely a means, regardless of nationality, races or where
he was born. Persons are objective ends(things whose existence is in itself an
end) which cannot be replaced by any other end, not a subjective end whose
value of existence is only as an object of our actions like “things” in
general. Actions which use other people for our own benefit without any regard
to their interest is hence forbidden. This is not because we want others to do
the same to us in return but simply because they deserve respects and have
values as such in themselves. This version of Categorial Imperative maybe
viewed as still an unconditioned obligation which also gives a guideline of
conducts with respect to others.

In
conclusion, Kant’s answer to why should we be moral should be it is because
there are absolute laws which everyone ought to be abide, this includes the
idea that each person has his own ends and hence ought to be respected. This is
a deontological view which has a central concept on duty and is solely based on
reason.

However, the question why we should obey
this law may arise and cannot be answered by the deontological.

Another
important idea on ethics and morality which may give an answer to the question
is the Utilitarianism. It gives a stark contrast to Kant’s deontological
argument. Utilitarianism is one of the consequentialistic idea which emphasises
the moral value of actions on their consequences and the Greatest Happiness
Principle rather than the standard absolute laws as in the deontological. One
of the leading figure in Utilitarianism is Bentham who viewed that principle of
utility which is the principle that approves or disapproves of every action
according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in question. However, Bentham’s idea
seems to incline to the egoism side and hence was taken up and refined by John
Stuart Mill. Mill still sticks to the utilitarian framework that actions are right
as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of
happiness. Happiness according to Mill is a pleasure and absence of pain. He
was not satisfied with Bentham’s hedonism which states that pleasure is the
sole ultimate value and to Bentham, this pleasure seems to be only physical. To
Mill, it cannot satisfy human conception of happiness since human has a
distinctive capacity to enjoy the exercise of capacities for intelligent
activity in contrast to other animals. He then goes on to make a distinction
between higher and lower pleasures. This implies that Mill thinks that
pleasures differ from one another not only in quantity but also quality.
However, the higher pleasures can be said to be superior only because of human
preferences which must be of those who have properly experienced the
alternatives e.g. experiencing by the process of education or a commitment over
a period of time.

The
answer to why we should be moral regarding the view of Utilitarianism might
then be to maximise the collective happiness of the group as a whole,
considering pleasures differ both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Alternatively, we might look at his idea on the psychical connection between
human nature and human happiness and say that we should act morally because it
is in our nature to do so and enjoy the exercise of our capacities for
intelligent activity.

However
Mill’s idea is still subject to many criticisms, an obvious one being how can
happiness be measured. Mill’s qualitative approach on happiness seems to be a
simple summation of all happiness and subtraction of all unhappiness. He adds
that equal amount of happiness are equally desirable to everyone. This can
hardly be justified. Some criticise Utilitarianism that it does not attach any
significance to the person who gets the benefits, assuming everyone is counted
equal. Usually, this should not be the case for one might get upset more than
another if their promises have been broken, maybe because of different and
unique relationship of one to another. The problem of having no time to
calculate and weigh the effects of a conduct prior to the action is also a
barrier to adopting Utilitarianism as a guideline to moral conducts. Mill
answers this by suggesting that mankind have been learning all the time by
experience the tendencies of actions. Mill also incorporates some deontological
view of ethics into Utilitarianism in order to answer the objection. This
version of utilitarianism is called rule-utilitarianism as distinct from
act-utilitarianism as we have seen before. He says that to act rightly, we need
to be guided by traditional rules. We cannot calculate the consequences of
actions from scratch. We should then be moral by following the general rules so
that it would produce the best consequences.

Some
view Kant’sand Mill’s philosophy of
ethics as two extreme poles. Kant emphasises the universal whereas Mill
emphasises the particular. The philosophy that combines the two is the Hegelian
morality which stresses on the social relations of an individual. This is
claimed to be what Mill’s and Kant’s philosophy fail to grasp and take into
account. Bradley, one of the Hegelians, identifies “self-realisation” as the
central concept of ethics and the self here refers to social self, self through
the relations to other selves. In the problem of breaking a promise, the
utilitarian only forbids breaking a promise because it harms the other person
and creates unhappiness but it fails to see the unique nature of the harm. The
answer from the relational theory by Bradley will be because breaking a promise
harms the relationship of trust and reliance between us and the other person.
Being loyal to a friend and standing by him are also actions which ought to be
done just because they are what it is to be friends. This may be called
emotional commitment or underlying relationship which demands a certain kind of
concern in each case. This commitment to others is internal to self-realisation
because it is internal to the self. These explanations bridge the moral gap
between self and others with self as a social self whereas the claim by the
utilitarian to bridge individual happiness to general happiness cannot be
justified. In the light of social relation theory, Kantian ethics is merely a
principle of consistency and impersonality of reasons. The relational theory
may be viewed to agree with the naturalism well. The naturalist such as David
Hume says that human beings are essentially social creatures and they go
through the process of emotional development through relationships with others,
by learning the needs of others and take them into account. However, there is a
difference between the naturalism and the relational theory in the way that the
former tells us to be moral because our natural feelings tell us so. It will
give us the peace of mind and happiness, being fulfilled by the deepest need.
The latter says that we should be moral just because it is always the case to
do so, considering the importance of social self and the relationships with
others in committing such actions.

The
social relation theory also suffers from criticisms. It does not seem to
provide a definite guidance as to how we ought to act. An objection like why we
ought to realise the social self in the self-realisation scheme and not one’s
own self like the egoists might say seems to suggest that the concept of
self-realisation alone cannot tell us how to act but has to be integrated with
other ethics to be of any value.

I
personally agree with the view of social relations and naturalism in the
way that we ought to act morally because that is what it takes to be ourselves
in the society where we take different roles and status and because we have “feelings” towards others.As a human being, we are
highly dependent on others both physically and mentally. To make a civilised
society a happy place to live in, all of its members should be moral. However,
the tender natural feelings which will lead to morality may only exist in
modern societies as a contrast to the society in stone age era, say, when the
harsh condition of environments may force human to rather adopt the egoism view
in order to ensure the survival like David Hume remarked. Kantian ethics seem
to give a reasonable and clear-cut proposition that what is right, is right and
what is wrong, is always wrong. This,
I think, should always be used, along with the feelings towards others and
our roles in the society, as a director
andan additional guideline to decide how to act morally. His second version of the Categorial
Imperative that tells us to treat others as they also have their own ends is
also compatible to some extent with the view of social relation on why we
should be moral although with different intentions. What is moral is still to
be discussed further. To me, the answer to the question “why should we be
moral” lies dominantly in the social relationships and natural feelings and
partly in the realm ofthe deontological
view.